There have been several instances where I've had to talk to people who have a personal vandetta against the media. The first time I came across personally in the line of duty was when the county prosecutor in one of my coverage areas told me how much the media makes things worse. I was speaking to him about bomb threats at the high school and he said he blames the media for making this people "glorious."
Well, I understand his frustration, especially when I see Larry King is going to do a big interview thing with Paris Hilton. Paris Hilton has been getting so much media coverage over this whole jail thing and as a reporter, I can't even being to tell you how angry this makes me.
People are dying in Darfur. People are dying in Iraq. The American people barely know anything about any of the presidential candidates for 08. People complain about the obesity crisis in children and blame food companies when the real culprits are parents who let their children play video games and watch TV all day. And we're spending all our time watching coverage of Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith.
There's a part of us, as Americans, that want to see the stars fall. We want to see bad things happen to them and hear about their failures, their head-shaving jounreys and jail time. We want proof that they are human. I think the danger here is that we spend too much time obsessing about them. Even I'm obsessing about it because it irritates me so much.
And the fact that Paris's crying fits of hysteria every night got her out of jail just absolutely infuriates me. Who does she think she is? You don't get star treatment. And don't tell me you're not giving her star treatment. She is. And you are. And it's flat out WRONG.
That's my soap box. But seriously, folks, this is the problem with the media. We latch onto stories that we know people will obsess about because that is how we get the ratings. That's how we get the readers. That's how we make the money.
The goal of media is to make money. Period. This is part of the reason I'm getting out and quitting my job and going into seminary. I want to do somethign that will make a difference, not something that will just make a company money. I want to tell someone's story and create awareness about issues. I don't feel like I'm doing that here at my weekly. I do sometimes, but mostly not. Mostly I just cover meetings and write stories dependant on meetings.
It irritates me that this is what the media has become. We have become muckrackers and we have lost sight of the point of jouralism. We have lost sight of the purpose of journalism: to inform. News is what the people want and need to know. Not what the media thinks will just make money.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Why I Hate My Job
What a title for a blog entry, right?
So, it's been an extremely hectic last couple of months and I haven't had much of an opportunity (or motivation) to update the blog. I'm also doing some revisions on one of my novels, so that's been taking up a lot of my time as well.
June starts this weekend, which means it's officially my last month of working full time for the newspaper. As of July, I will be a full time seminary student. Talk about a career change, eh?
But while reflecting on my time as a pro journalist, I've been focusing on how much I really don't want to be a journalist and the answer I came up with this morning is that: it's a dependant job.
Everything I do as a journalist is dependent on someone else. My stories don't get done without outside influence. That's where interviews come into play. Nothing happens without input from someone else. I hate the idea of my entire job -- not just aspects, but the entire job -- being dependent on someone else.
My stories don't get done without interviews. They don't get printed without approval from my editor. They don't get printed without corrections and approval from the copy desk. Everything about being a journalist is about being dependent on others. Even the art of generating story ideas depends on who you can talk to about getting information.
True, a lot of the coming up with story ideas has to do with my own brain storming. But again, those stories don't get done without the help of outside influence.
I tend to think all writing is like that, some forms more than others. Journalism seems to lend itself to more outside influence, and that goes for magazine and newspaper journalism.
Fiction writing, I think, has some differences in that department. I'm more dependent on my own imagination, but I'm still dependent on my outside world and frame of reference for ideas. I create characters that are loosely based on real people, either in appearance or in personality. Rarely are they based on both.
Journalism isn't all bad, though. I enjoy writing feature stories and telling people's stories.
But geeze, if I never have to write another budget story, it'll be too soon.
I'll update again soon. No promises, but I'll try my best :)
And for the record, I don't actually hate my job. I've just been learning by trial and error that newspaper writing isn't necessarily the gig for me.
So, it's been an extremely hectic last couple of months and I haven't had much of an opportunity (or motivation) to update the blog. I'm also doing some revisions on one of my novels, so that's been taking up a lot of my time as well.
June starts this weekend, which means it's officially my last month of working full time for the newspaper. As of July, I will be a full time seminary student. Talk about a career change, eh?
But while reflecting on my time as a pro journalist, I've been focusing on how much I really don't want to be a journalist and the answer I came up with this morning is that: it's a dependant job.
Everything I do as a journalist is dependent on someone else. My stories don't get done without outside influence. That's where interviews come into play. Nothing happens without input from someone else. I hate the idea of my entire job -- not just aspects, but the entire job -- being dependent on someone else.
My stories don't get done without interviews. They don't get printed without approval from my editor. They don't get printed without corrections and approval from the copy desk. Everything about being a journalist is about being dependent on others. Even the art of generating story ideas depends on who you can talk to about getting information.
True, a lot of the coming up with story ideas has to do with my own brain storming. But again, those stories don't get done without the help of outside influence.
I tend to think all writing is like that, some forms more than others. Journalism seems to lend itself to more outside influence, and that goes for magazine and newspaper journalism.
Fiction writing, I think, has some differences in that department. I'm more dependent on my own imagination, but I'm still dependent on my outside world and frame of reference for ideas. I create characters that are loosely based on real people, either in appearance or in personality. Rarely are they based on both.
Journalism isn't all bad, though. I enjoy writing feature stories and telling people's stories.
But geeze, if I never have to write another budget story, it'll be too soon.
I'll update again soon. No promises, but I'll try my best :)
And for the record, I don't actually hate my job. I've just been learning by trial and error that newspaper writing isn't necessarily the gig for me.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Welcome. Here's your paddle.
Before I begin the story, I'm going to do this backwards and tell you what the moral of the story is. The moral of the story is that no matter where you work, which paper you work for or what towns you cover, you will always find some kind of drama. Good or bad, it's always going to be there.
I'm working in a different office for a few weeks until the company hires two new reporters for this particular paper. It means three things for me. First, it means that it's going to take me about four times as long to get to work in the morning because I'm working in a different town. Second, it means I get a break from the two Hell-towns I cover at my office. Third, it means I leave the drama of those two towns and come to the drama of these two towns.
It took me three hours to get to work this morning; it's only supposed to take forty minutes, and that's without traffic. It takes me ten minutes to get to work at my regular paper, so you can see why I'm a little extra cranky today.
But the reason it took so long was because of the road and traffic situation. There is only one road getting into the town in which I'm filling in. One road. There are three roads that converge onto this road. Two of the three were closed due to flooding.
This is what happens: In the same weekend, your state governor ends up in the hospital because he wasn't smart enough to wear a seatbelt on the high way and several towns get buried by a northeaster. So this northeaster comes in and one of the towns I'm covering right now was almost completely under water. It was bad. Really bad.
So I went today to the refugee building where they evacuated almost 300 people to. It was lined with cots and plastic bags of clothes and sleeping bags and people who just looked like complete zombies. I can't even imagine sitting in a room like that with hundreds of other people just waiting to hear if I'd ever be able to go back home or not.
So between flooding, a governor who's in the hospital, and coping with people who are associated with the town I cover and the Virgina Tech incident, it's been really hectic around here. Drama is in every town, no matter where you live, no matter what town you cover, no matter what paper you write for.
Harry Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." This is what reporting is about, folks. It's about covering the drama in a way that doesn't completely kill your Bullshit Goggles. It's about going to cover the hard stuff and talking to people who have found out they just lost everything except the clothes on their back.
On that note, happy writing.
I'm working in a different office for a few weeks until the company hires two new reporters for this particular paper. It means three things for me. First, it means that it's going to take me about four times as long to get to work in the morning because I'm working in a different town. Second, it means I get a break from the two Hell-towns I cover at my office. Third, it means I leave the drama of those two towns and come to the drama of these two towns.
It took me three hours to get to work this morning; it's only supposed to take forty minutes, and that's without traffic. It takes me ten minutes to get to work at my regular paper, so you can see why I'm a little extra cranky today.
But the reason it took so long was because of the road and traffic situation. There is only one road getting into the town in which I'm filling in. One road. There are three roads that converge onto this road. Two of the three were closed due to flooding.
This is what happens: In the same weekend, your state governor ends up in the hospital because he wasn't smart enough to wear a seatbelt on the high way and several towns get buried by a northeaster. So this northeaster comes in and one of the towns I'm covering right now was almost completely under water. It was bad. Really bad.
So I went today to the refugee building where they evacuated almost 300 people to. It was lined with cots and plastic bags of clothes and sleeping bags and people who just looked like complete zombies. I can't even imagine sitting in a room like that with hundreds of other people just waiting to hear if I'd ever be able to go back home or not.
So between flooding, a governor who's in the hospital, and coping with people who are associated with the town I cover and the Virgina Tech incident, it's been really hectic around here. Drama is in every town, no matter where you live, no matter what town you cover, no matter what paper you write for.
Harry Truman said, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." This is what reporting is about, folks. It's about covering the drama in a way that doesn't completely kill your Bullshit Goggles. It's about going to cover the hard stuff and talking to people who have found out they just lost everything except the clothes on their back.
On that note, happy writing.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
A Novel Idea
"There are three rules for writing a novel. Unforunately, no one knows what they are." --
I love going to used bookstores. Every time I go, I always look for the section that has books on writing. I'm not sure why; I never end up buying any of them. I've never found "that book" that explains exactly how to start, work on, finish, and publish a novel. I'm of the belief that you can't find out how to write well from a book on writing as well as you can from an actual book.
Ie., if you want to write fantasy stories, you'd better be reading fantasy books to see how the "masters" do it and learn what type of fantasy story really markets itself well.
I've written a few novels (none of which are published yet) and I think the best novel advice I can give anyone is to learn when to let go.
I've been working on this novel for six years now. I wrote the first draft in high school and it's been through about four major overhaul revisions since I finished the first draft. Everything from completely changing the ending, to completely changing the beginning to moving the whole story from first-person point of view to third-person limited point of view. It's been a long time coming. Several people have read it and given me feedback. I've queried about five or six agents with no luck.
I'm at a point now where the novel is sitting on my computer staring at me with this mocking glare, daring me to edit it some more. And I always fall victim to its mocks. It's almost an annual thing to do an overhaul these days on the book and part of me thinks the reason for this is that I know if I'm still editing it that I can't send out query letters.
And there's plenty of reasons that I'm afraid to query. Having the novel accepted means that I'm done. It means that the story has been abandoned until an editor rips through it and I guess having an editor rip through my story is the equivalent of being raped. It means that my vision for the story becomes lost as an editor looks at the story merely as an item for sale. To me, this story is part of my life. It's an actual, tangible piece of my soul stuck on two flash drives, two hard drives, two floppy disks (You can see my paranoia of a technology failure) and two large 3-inch binders. It's a piece of my life and the idea of someone else judging it bugs me.
Which is why I'm telling you that if you ever want to write and publish a novel, learn to let it go. Learn that if you want your work published, you have to learn to create and let it lead its own life. It's very much like parenthood. Your novel is your baby, and whether you believe it or not, if it's meant to be shared with the world, it will do so, whether you really want it to or not. But you have to let it go. I have to let go of my novel and let it try and stand on its own two feet in front of a literary agent and potential editors. I'm not of the illusion that this is going to be a quick and easy process. I realize it will be painful. I realize that I'm going to see a lot more rejections before I see a few acceptances.
But I also realize it'll be worth it when the book is on the shelves and I can walk into Barnes and Nobles and see it on the shelf. It makes it a little easier to move towards the process of letting go.
I love going to used bookstores. Every time I go, I always look for the section that has books on writing. I'm not sure why; I never end up buying any of them. I've never found "that book" that explains exactly how to start, work on, finish, and publish a novel. I'm of the belief that you can't find out how to write well from a book on writing as well as you can from an actual book.
Ie., if you want to write fantasy stories, you'd better be reading fantasy books to see how the "masters" do it and learn what type of fantasy story really markets itself well.
I've written a few novels (none of which are published yet) and I think the best novel advice I can give anyone is to learn when to let go.
I've been working on this novel for six years now. I wrote the first draft in high school and it's been through about four major overhaul revisions since I finished the first draft. Everything from completely changing the ending, to completely changing the beginning to moving the whole story from first-person point of view to third-person limited point of view. It's been a long time coming. Several people have read it and given me feedback. I've queried about five or six agents with no luck.
I'm at a point now where the novel is sitting on my computer staring at me with this mocking glare, daring me to edit it some more. And I always fall victim to its mocks. It's almost an annual thing to do an overhaul these days on the book and part of me thinks the reason for this is that I know if I'm still editing it that I can't send out query letters.
And there's plenty of reasons that I'm afraid to query. Having the novel accepted means that I'm done. It means that the story has been abandoned until an editor rips through it and I guess having an editor rip through my story is the equivalent of being raped. It means that my vision for the story becomes lost as an editor looks at the story merely as an item for sale. To me, this story is part of my life. It's an actual, tangible piece of my soul stuck on two flash drives, two hard drives, two floppy disks (You can see my paranoia of a technology failure) and two large 3-inch binders. It's a piece of my life and the idea of someone else judging it bugs me.
Which is why I'm telling you that if you ever want to write and publish a novel, learn to let it go. Learn that if you want your work published, you have to learn to create and let it lead its own life. It's very much like parenthood. Your novel is your baby, and whether you believe it or not, if it's meant to be shared with the world, it will do so, whether you really want it to or not. But you have to let it go. I have to let go of my novel and let it try and stand on its own two feet in front of a literary agent and potential editors. I'm not of the illusion that this is going to be a quick and easy process. I realize it will be painful. I realize that I'm going to see a lot more rejections before I see a few acceptances.
But I also realize it'll be worth it when the book is on the shelves and I can walk into Barnes and Nobles and see it on the shelf. It makes it a little easier to move towards the process of letting go.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
The Last One To Know
So, here's a funny story. Well...funny for me. Not for the people it involves. I'll explain.
Since I've started at the this newspaper, there have been three instances where I've had to break bad news to people. The first time was when one of the school boards that I cover announced that they were suing the state Department of Education and the state Education Commissioner. So I called the state DOE and asked for a comment about the lawsuit and the comment I got was, "We're being SUED?!?!?!"
Oops.
The second time was when another school board I covered voted to write a letter to a fellow board member asking him to resign his post after he allegedly made racial comments (I've mentioned this before, I'm sure). He knew the letter was coming, but when I called he hadn't received the letter yet, so that was not as big of an oopps, but an "oops" just the same.
The third and most recent time was the other day when I got a news release from two people that filed an ethics complaint against a committeeman in yet another town I cover (I cover six towns). They filed the complaint five years ago and the state Local Finance Board found him guilty of violating ethics law because of a vote he made in office. He was fined $500. Then he appealed the decision with the state's Office of Authoritative Law who decided that there wasn't enough evidence to suggest that he acted in self-interest instead of violating ethics law, so they tossed out the decision. Then, last Friday, they announced that the LFB rejected their decision and the final decision was that he was going to be fined $500. So I called him to see if he would be willing to comment about the decision. Here's how it happened:
Me: Would you be willing to comment?
Him: That's old news. They made the decision to toss that out two years ago and they haven't made a final decision yet.
Me: Not according to a news release I got. According to this, the decision was made last Friday.
Him: Well then I guess I'd better call my attorney, shouldn't I?
So yeah, that was awkward.
I don't especially like being the bearer of unhappy tidings. It's always slightly amusing when I know stuff like that before the person directly affected knows, but hey. It happens. The three people weren't angry with me, of course, since I'm just the messenger doing my job. But it's always awkward when that happens. It's a little frustrating when news comes out a day before press time, so then I have to wait for people to track down their attorney and get me an official statement. Sometimes they get back to me, sometimes they don't. When they don't, the official statement is, 'So and so declined comment' and that's just the way it has to be.
In other news, it's pouring outside today for the first time in like...two months. So, we need the rain, but I still don't like walking into my office soaking wet. Ew.
Since I've started at the this newspaper, there have been three instances where I've had to break bad news to people. The first time was when one of the school boards that I cover announced that they were suing the state Department of Education and the state Education Commissioner. So I called the state DOE and asked for a comment about the lawsuit and the comment I got was, "We're being SUED?!?!?!"
Oops.
The second time was when another school board I covered voted to write a letter to a fellow board member asking him to resign his post after he allegedly made racial comments (I've mentioned this before, I'm sure). He knew the letter was coming, but when I called he hadn't received the letter yet, so that was not as big of an oopps, but an "oops" just the same.
The third and most recent time was the other day when I got a news release from two people that filed an ethics complaint against a committeeman in yet another town I cover (I cover six towns). They filed the complaint five years ago and the state Local Finance Board found him guilty of violating ethics law because of a vote he made in office. He was fined $500. Then he appealed the decision with the state's Office of Authoritative Law who decided that there wasn't enough evidence to suggest that he acted in self-interest instead of violating ethics law, so they tossed out the decision. Then, last Friday, they announced that the LFB rejected their decision and the final decision was that he was going to be fined $500. So I called him to see if he would be willing to comment about the decision. Here's how it happened:
Me: Would you be willing to comment?
Him: That's old news. They made the decision to toss that out two years ago and they haven't made a final decision yet.
Me: Not according to a news release I got. According to this, the decision was made last Friday.
Him: Well then I guess I'd better call my attorney, shouldn't I?
So yeah, that was awkward.
I don't especially like being the bearer of unhappy tidings. It's always slightly amusing when I know stuff like that before the person directly affected knows, but hey. It happens. The three people weren't angry with me, of course, since I'm just the messenger doing my job. But it's always awkward when that happens. It's a little frustrating when news comes out a day before press time, so then I have to wait for people to track down their attorney and get me an official statement. Sometimes they get back to me, sometimes they don't. When they don't, the official statement is, 'So and so declined comment' and that's just the way it has to be.
In other news, it's pouring outside today for the first time in like...two months. So, we need the rain, but I still don't like walking into my office soaking wet. Ew.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
He said, She said: Put on your Bullshit Goggles
When I started working for this paper, the first thing my editor told me was that I would have to put on my "Bullshit Goggles," meaning he knew better than I some of the people I would be dealing with. Lately, he's told me I have good Bullshit Goggles, so I get a gold star for that.
Lately, though, I've gone from having to wash off my goggles after every meeting to having to wash them off after every phone call, which is turning into washing them off quite a few times a day and the biggest waste of water ever.
Two of the towns I cover are filled with drama. In one town, the township council refuses to get along. Everyone has something to say about everyone else and they all fight. At meetings. It's quite irking to be sitting there quietly in my chair and listen to the council fight -- not bicker or disagree. But fight. And they're mean about it! So when I have a council member call me and tell me that another council is doing something naughty and illegal, I have to put on the Bullshit Goggles and make sure I'm seeing straight. Most of the time, it turns out to be just a load of crap that doesn't mean anything. Like that naughty illegal stuff that really isn't happening.
In the same town, the school board is having its own set of problems. The school board isn't getting enough state aid, so they're suing the state Department of Education over what they consider to be a "discriminatory" state aid formula. But their budget process this year has been absolutely inane. I'm not joking. Every time I turn around, there's another meeting on their budget. One of the guys running for school board this year called the budget process, 'Ridiculous to the point of a comedy," which I think is just completley accurate. No Bullshit Glasses for that one.
In another town that I cover, the school board wrote a letter asking a board member to resign when the board member wasn't even there. He allegedly made a racial comment to a resident in the hallway during the recess of a meeting in February and since then, people have been going crazy trying to get him off the board. Legally, all the board can do officially is censure him, which is basically a "slap on the wrist" action with no teeth to bear. So they voted 4-3 to write a letter asking him to resign. The board member hasn't even gotten the letter, but the article on it is coming out tomorrow. At least he knows the letter is coming so my article won't cause a whole lot of problems for him. But it's frustrating that people are making this big a deal out of it. Yes, racism is a huge problem that we need to deal with but guess what? IT'S HERE TO STAY. I have a sneaky suspicion that all these people saying that they don't want racists on the school board make their own racial comments.
Ever heard the "Avenue Q" song "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist"? I truly believe that. To all the parents saying that they don't want a racist on the school board: Racists shouldn't be raising your children. As a result, you are all unfit for parenthood and should resign from being a parent. And by saying this, I'm going on record stating that I'm not condoning racism, but I'm not naive enough to think that these parents are perfect on their ridiculous stuffed up pedistols.
Okay, I'm down off my soap box now. Seriously, this kind of thing frustrates me. I'm tired of my poor Bullshit Goggles causing the water in my office to run out. Being a journalist is so much more than having to deal with the bullshit that comes from our sources, but sometimes it doesn't seem like that's true. If print ever goes dead, it's going to be because we've been taking over by bullshit pushing us out of our offices and destroying the printing press machines.
Wonderful, eh?
At any rate, for the record, journalism isn't so bad, I'm obviously still working here, so it's not all death-consuming, but sometimes yeah, it gets pretty frustrating. If you're not up for this kind of thing, start looking for a new profession now. Run -- don't walk -- to the nearest Monster.com.
Lately, though, I've gone from having to wash off my goggles after every meeting to having to wash them off after every phone call, which is turning into washing them off quite a few times a day and the biggest waste of water ever.
Two of the towns I cover are filled with drama. In one town, the township council refuses to get along. Everyone has something to say about everyone else and they all fight. At meetings. It's quite irking to be sitting there quietly in my chair and listen to the council fight -- not bicker or disagree. But fight. And they're mean about it! So when I have a council member call me and tell me that another council is doing something naughty and illegal, I have to put on the Bullshit Goggles and make sure I'm seeing straight. Most of the time, it turns out to be just a load of crap that doesn't mean anything. Like that naughty illegal stuff that really isn't happening.
In the same town, the school board is having its own set of problems. The school board isn't getting enough state aid, so they're suing the state Department of Education over what they consider to be a "discriminatory" state aid formula. But their budget process this year has been absolutely inane. I'm not joking. Every time I turn around, there's another meeting on their budget. One of the guys running for school board this year called the budget process, 'Ridiculous to the point of a comedy," which I think is just completley accurate. No Bullshit Glasses for that one.
In another town that I cover, the school board wrote a letter asking a board member to resign when the board member wasn't even there. He allegedly made a racial comment to a resident in the hallway during the recess of a meeting in February and since then, people have been going crazy trying to get him off the board. Legally, all the board can do officially is censure him, which is basically a "slap on the wrist" action with no teeth to bear. So they voted 4-3 to write a letter asking him to resign. The board member hasn't even gotten the letter, but the article on it is coming out tomorrow. At least he knows the letter is coming so my article won't cause a whole lot of problems for him. But it's frustrating that people are making this big a deal out of it. Yes, racism is a huge problem that we need to deal with but guess what? IT'S HERE TO STAY. I have a sneaky suspicion that all these people saying that they don't want racists on the school board make their own racial comments.
Ever heard the "Avenue Q" song "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist"? I truly believe that. To all the parents saying that they don't want a racist on the school board: Racists shouldn't be raising your children. As a result, you are all unfit for parenthood and should resign from being a parent. And by saying this, I'm going on record stating that I'm not condoning racism, but I'm not naive enough to think that these parents are perfect on their ridiculous stuffed up pedistols.
Okay, I'm down off my soap box now. Seriously, this kind of thing frustrates me. I'm tired of my poor Bullshit Goggles causing the water in my office to run out. Being a journalist is so much more than having to deal with the bullshit that comes from our sources, but sometimes it doesn't seem like that's true. If print ever goes dead, it's going to be because we've been taking over by bullshit pushing us out of our offices and destroying the printing press machines.
Wonderful, eh?
At any rate, for the record, journalism isn't so bad, I'm obviously still working here, so it's not all death-consuming, but sometimes yeah, it gets pretty frustrating. If you're not up for this kind of thing, start looking for a new profession now. Run -- don't walk -- to the nearest Monster.com.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Editorial Review: Why I Hate It
Okay, so I'm not that great at posting weekly. I'm working two jobs. Give me a break.
At any rate, onto the blog topic of the week: Editorial Review.
For those who don't know, editorial review is when a reporter allows someone to read an article before it goes to print. I've been in a position where I've granted editorial review and I've also been in a position where I've denied it. If an article is not technical and a person is just worried about the way they will sound, I don't grant editorial review. If an article is very sensitive and includes a lot of technical jargon (ie, medical stuff, legal stuff) I will often allow a source to see the article before it goes to print.
But even when I grant editorial review, I really don't like to do it, and here's why: I hate being told how to do my job. I've been writing for a newspaper long enough that I know I'm not an expert, but I know I don't need non-reporters telling me what to do or how I can make my work better. I'm always up for constructive criticism (which is a lie, because come on let's be honest: no one likes to be told they could be better, even when it's true), but when a source insists that I rewrite something to its entirety...I just have a problem with that.
I'm working on a story now about a teenage girl with anorexia. She's in a residential home getting treatment for it and she's doing really, really well. It's a very emotional story, especially for her parents. I was at their home the other night for two hours talking with them about the topic. The article is growing in its length and already, it's more than 44 inches.
Side note: Newspaper articles are measure in inches. Page-length wise, that comes out to be about 4-5 pages, which is a LOT for something that's not going in a magagzin. I can't wait for my editor to tell me I have to chop it.
But anyways, the 44-inch story is going really well and I sent a draft of it to the family because I really want them to be an active part of the article. So I guess in that way, I'm setting myself up for criticism. This is something that's very sensitive, very private for them. But at the same time, I don't want them thinking that just because they suggest changes, those changes will appear in the completed article.
To be fair, never promise a source that granting editorial review means that changes will automatically be accepted. Writers, here's the truth: It's your story. Yes, you have to deal with the changes that your editors and copy editors make, but to allow a source to take control of your story is just not good journalism. It sends the message that the public has the right to manipulate the press, and that's just not the case. Most papers don't allow editorial review at all. My paper uses is extremely sparingly and my editor has told me he frowns on it.
And with good reason. I hate editorial review. It has its place in some instances, of course. There are always exceptions. In the case of this teenage girl with anorexia, I consider it an exception and I made a judgement call to include their views before the article goes to print. But generally, I will almost always deny editorial review simply because I strongly believe that writers -- especially new writers -- are often intimidated by sources and their changes.
In all honesty, this story with the anorexic girl is going very well. The family is very nice to work with and they have offered minimal comments; I think they get the point of editorial review without taking advantage of it.
At any rate, be careful with editorial review, make sure you know your paper's policy regarding editorial review, and happy writing.
At any rate, onto the blog topic of the week: Editorial Review.
For those who don't know, editorial review is when a reporter allows someone to read an article before it goes to print. I've been in a position where I've granted editorial review and I've also been in a position where I've denied it. If an article is not technical and a person is just worried about the way they will sound, I don't grant editorial review. If an article is very sensitive and includes a lot of technical jargon (ie, medical stuff, legal stuff) I will often allow a source to see the article before it goes to print.
But even when I grant editorial review, I really don't like to do it, and here's why: I hate being told how to do my job. I've been writing for a newspaper long enough that I know I'm not an expert, but I know I don't need non-reporters telling me what to do or how I can make my work better. I'm always up for constructive criticism (which is a lie, because come on let's be honest: no one likes to be told they could be better, even when it's true), but when a source insists that I rewrite something to its entirety...I just have a problem with that.
I'm working on a story now about a teenage girl with anorexia. She's in a residential home getting treatment for it and she's doing really, really well. It's a very emotional story, especially for her parents. I was at their home the other night for two hours talking with them about the topic. The article is growing in its length and already, it's more than 44 inches.
Side note: Newspaper articles are measure in inches. Page-length wise, that comes out to be about 4-5 pages, which is a LOT for something that's not going in a magagzin. I can't wait for my editor to tell me I have to chop it.
But anyways, the 44-inch story is going really well and I sent a draft of it to the family because I really want them to be an active part of the article. So I guess in that way, I'm setting myself up for criticism. This is something that's very sensitive, very private for them. But at the same time, I don't want them thinking that just because they suggest changes, those changes will appear in the completed article.
To be fair, never promise a source that granting editorial review means that changes will automatically be accepted. Writers, here's the truth: It's your story. Yes, you have to deal with the changes that your editors and copy editors make, but to allow a source to take control of your story is just not good journalism. It sends the message that the public has the right to manipulate the press, and that's just not the case. Most papers don't allow editorial review at all. My paper uses is extremely sparingly and my editor has told me he frowns on it.
And with good reason. I hate editorial review. It has its place in some instances, of course. There are always exceptions. In the case of this teenage girl with anorexia, I consider it an exception and I made a judgement call to include their views before the article goes to print. But generally, I will almost always deny editorial review simply because I strongly believe that writers -- especially new writers -- are often intimidated by sources and their changes.
In all honesty, this story with the anorexic girl is going very well. The family is very nice to work with and they have offered minimal comments; I think they get the point of editorial review without taking advantage of it.
At any rate, be careful with editorial review, make sure you know your paper's policy regarding editorial review, and happy writing.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Deadlines: Ick
I think one of the most annoying parts of being a reporter is the phone. I hate calling people as it is, but even more so, I hate waiting for people to call me back. I spend a lot of time sitting at my desk floating around the internet hoping that people call me back before deadline. A lot of times, I get right down to the wire before people decide to call me back.
Working on a Tuesday deadline when stuff happens Monday doens't help. For example, the state Department of Education recently released its state aid figures. We were told this on Tuesday, which is NOT fun when you're working on a Tuesday deadline. Because the paper was half done and my editor was on vacation, the stand-in editor elected to hold the state aid story for next week. So far, the other papers we rival with have covered the state aid story. It's the one drawback of being a weekly paper, that we can't be as timely as other papers because of our deadlines.
My paper is particular makes that frustrating because our deadline is Tuesday but the paper doens't come out until Thursday. So when things happen on Wednesday, we're still pretty much stuck.
Deadlines are a necessary evil though, and probably the most important part of journalism. If you don't make a deadline, you don't tell the news on time. Simple as that. News is fleeting in today's society. With masters of technology like the web and television, news papers have a difficult time being first in line with headlines. It's even tougher when you're pitting weekly papers like us against a daily paper like The Times.
Here's our benefit though: Because we're a weekly paper, our life is a lot calmer. Yes, we scramble to meet our deadlines, especially when we have trouble getting people to call us back. A lot of people are leary of the media, and when you look at what goes on in today's society, who can blame them? But it's calmer because our stories are often calmer. We have time to dig into personal, local stories and tell the homey stories that daily papers often don't bother with. We're able to give voice to the local people that might be overlooked by the daily papers and by television news casts.
Deadlines aren't fun (unless you love to work under pressure), but they are necessary. Without them, chaos in the newsroom ensues. And folks, chaos is a lot less fun than deadlines.
Working on a Tuesday deadline when stuff happens Monday doens't help. For example, the state Department of Education recently released its state aid figures. We were told this on Tuesday, which is NOT fun when you're working on a Tuesday deadline. Because the paper was half done and my editor was on vacation, the stand-in editor elected to hold the state aid story for next week. So far, the other papers we rival with have covered the state aid story. It's the one drawback of being a weekly paper, that we can't be as timely as other papers because of our deadlines.
My paper is particular makes that frustrating because our deadline is Tuesday but the paper doens't come out until Thursday. So when things happen on Wednesday, we're still pretty much stuck.
Deadlines are a necessary evil though, and probably the most important part of journalism. If you don't make a deadline, you don't tell the news on time. Simple as that. News is fleeting in today's society. With masters of technology like the web and television, news papers have a difficult time being first in line with headlines. It's even tougher when you're pitting weekly papers like us against a daily paper like The Times.
Here's our benefit though: Because we're a weekly paper, our life is a lot calmer. Yes, we scramble to meet our deadlines, especially when we have trouble getting people to call us back. A lot of people are leary of the media, and when you look at what goes on in today's society, who can blame them? But it's calmer because our stories are often calmer. We have time to dig into personal, local stories and tell the homey stories that daily papers often don't bother with. We're able to give voice to the local people that might be overlooked by the daily papers and by television news casts.
Deadlines aren't fun (unless you love to work under pressure), but they are necessary. Without them, chaos in the newsroom ensues. And folks, chaos is a lot less fun than deadlines.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Statistics: My Favorite Way to Die
The New Jersey Department of Education recently released the state school report cards. While students are used to seeing their report cards four times a year, every school in the state receives one report card annually. This report card goes into detail about students' test score results (including the graduation exams and the elementary school-aged kids exams and SAT scores), attendance rates, average teacher salaries, and variety of other pieces of information unique to each school.
The newspaper for which I work covers about five towns, so you can imagine how my day at work went today. For most of the morning and part of the afternoon, I found myself drowning statistics. After doing the first two towns, I started to get the hang of what each figure meant. The report card really breaks it down into terms that even I, a non recepient of a math degree, could understand.
Granted, it took a while.
Mathematics have never been my favorite subjects. I did decently well in math. When I was a senior in high school, I got straight A's in my math class and was exempt from the final. The teacher is still bitter about it. But, here's the moral of the blog this week:
Despite my personal feelings about mathematics, they turn out to be a necessary evil. Every day, I use math in some way. I balance my check book (or attempt to), calculate tips in my head at restaraunt (take that cell phone EZ tip finder!), and figure out if I have enough money to accomodate my occassional spending sprees.
Statistics was a nightmare for me. I took an introduction to stats course at a community college during the summer and the plan was the transfer the credits to my regular four year college so I wouldn't have to waste time during the school year for a class I didn't see any purpose for. It would have gone swimmingly, had I not gotten a D in the course. So, I retook it. For the most part, I did all right. I asked for a lot of help, spent many, many hours studying until I was beyond postive that I understood what was going on. My hard work paid off when I got an A in the class, a class that I'll reiterate that I was positive I was never, ever going to need as an English major.
But today, I found out different. Today, I found out why I took stats. No, I'm not using binomial distrubution. No, I'm not figuring out the co-efficient. No, I'm not even trying to reteach myself how to find the standard distribution for the figures about how much students improved in their math scores over the last two years. But I did have to read and interpret the scores. I did have to sift through the 100 or so pages of data and come up with some kind of story explaining them. It helps to know where the numbers came from so I can try and put that into layman's terms for my readers.
So that's my rationale for why stats are important, even for an English major. Some of it, no you're certainly never going to see it again. I've already decided that I'm slitting my wrists if I ever have to use the binomial distribution function (the reason I failed the summer class and got an A- instead of an A+ in the fall class). But I had to interpret stats and explain them. I had to use them.
If you're sitting in a stats class now, I feel for you. Seriously. For us word-minded folks, it has the potential to be a complete nightmare. For me, at least, it was. But hard work and the occassional crying to anyone that I thought might be able to explain things to me paid off in the end and made my morning much easier.
The newspaper for which I work covers about five towns, so you can imagine how my day at work went today. For most of the morning and part of the afternoon, I found myself drowning statistics. After doing the first two towns, I started to get the hang of what each figure meant. The report card really breaks it down into terms that even I, a non recepient of a math degree, could understand.
Granted, it took a while.
Mathematics have never been my favorite subjects. I did decently well in math. When I was a senior in high school, I got straight A's in my math class and was exempt from the final. The teacher is still bitter about it. But, here's the moral of the blog this week:
Despite my personal feelings about mathematics, they turn out to be a necessary evil. Every day, I use math in some way. I balance my check book (or attempt to), calculate tips in my head at restaraunt (take that cell phone EZ tip finder!), and figure out if I have enough money to accomodate my occassional spending sprees.
Statistics was a nightmare for me. I took an introduction to stats course at a community college during the summer and the plan was the transfer the credits to my regular four year college so I wouldn't have to waste time during the school year for a class I didn't see any purpose for. It would have gone swimmingly, had I not gotten a D in the course. So, I retook it. For the most part, I did all right. I asked for a lot of help, spent many, many hours studying until I was beyond postive that I understood what was going on. My hard work paid off when I got an A in the class, a class that I'll reiterate that I was positive I was never, ever going to need as an English major.
But today, I found out different. Today, I found out why I took stats. No, I'm not using binomial distrubution. No, I'm not figuring out the co-efficient. No, I'm not even trying to reteach myself how to find the standard distribution for the figures about how much students improved in their math scores over the last two years. But I did have to read and interpret the scores. I did have to sift through the 100 or so pages of data and come up with some kind of story explaining them. It helps to know where the numbers came from so I can try and put that into layman's terms for my readers.
So that's my rationale for why stats are important, even for an English major. Some of it, no you're certainly never going to see it again. I've already decided that I'm slitting my wrists if I ever have to use the binomial distribution function (the reason I failed the summer class and got an A- instead of an A+ in the fall class). But I had to interpret stats and explain them. I had to use them.
If you're sitting in a stats class now, I feel for you. Seriously. For us word-minded folks, it has the potential to be a complete nightmare. For me, at least, it was. But hard work and the occassional crying to anyone that I thought might be able to explain things to me paid off in the end and made my morning much easier.
Sunday, February 4, 2007
Ready, Set, Go
This is what happens: You're sitting in your office at work thinking to yourself, gee, I'm kind of bored because nobody is calling me back and I can't finish this news article until people call me back.
So you're sitting there at your desk and then you have an epiphany: Start a Blog!
Blog is such a strange word. Not personally my favorite, but whatever. But since this scenario is typical of my Thursdays and Fridays in the newsroom, starting a blog is what I decided to do. Here's who this blog is NOT for:
1) If you hate writing and hate reading about writing, you've stumbled into the wrong blog-o-sphere.
2) If you hate listening to someone talk about poor grammar and the like, you're in the wrong place.
3) If you hate people that talk about Shakespeare like he's the 13th apostle and can't understand what people see in Truman Capote, go away now.
4) If you don't know what the virgule is, game on! You're going to learn when I start my series, "My Favorite Marks of Punctuation."
5) If you don't give two hoots about my adventures in journalism, this is also not the blog for you.
Through my experiences and relations, I hope at least somebody can take something away from this. The goal is eventually to turn the blog entries into some kind of book, but we'll see how that goes. I'll probably be posting more than once a week, depending on how busy I am at work or how late I'm up at night wishing I had something to me awake while I'm hanging out on AIM.
So suit up and get your game on and enjoy The Writer's Life.
Ps.> Brownie points to whoever can tell me where the blog name, "Words, Words, Words" is quoted from. ;)
*Rebecca W.
So you're sitting there at your desk and then you have an epiphany: Start a Blog!
Blog is such a strange word. Not personally my favorite, but whatever. But since this scenario is typical of my Thursdays and Fridays in the newsroom, starting a blog is what I decided to do. Here's who this blog is NOT for:
1) If you hate writing and hate reading about writing, you've stumbled into the wrong blog-o-sphere.
2) If you hate listening to someone talk about poor grammar and the like, you're in the wrong place.
3) If you hate people that talk about Shakespeare like he's the 13th apostle and can't understand what people see in Truman Capote, go away now.
4) If you don't know what the virgule is, game on! You're going to learn when I start my series, "My Favorite Marks of Punctuation."
5) If you don't give two hoots about my adventures in journalism, this is also not the blog for you.
Through my experiences and relations, I hope at least somebody can take something away from this. The goal is eventually to turn the blog entries into some kind of book, but we'll see how that goes. I'll probably be posting more than once a week, depending on how busy I am at work or how late I'm up at night wishing I had something to me awake while I'm hanging out on AIM.
So suit up and get your game on and enjoy The Writer's Life.
Ps.> Brownie points to whoever can tell me where the blog name, "Words, Words, Words" is quoted from. ;)
*Rebecca W.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)